Better Than Well.
Fritz Flohr 2007 (April 2008 version)
“I looked at the number of the so-called severely disabled mentally ill – people who aren’t working. . . I wanted to chart through history the percentage of the population who are considered the disabled mentally ill. . . By 1955, at the start of the modern era of psychiatric drugs, roughly one out of every 300 people [in the United States] was disabled by mental illness. . . the disability rate has continued to increase until it’s now one in every 50 Americans. . . From 1987 until the present, [2005] we saw an increase in the number of mentally disabled people from 3.3 million people to 5.7 million people. . . Combined spending on antipsychotic drugs and antidepressants jumped from around $500 million in 1986 to nearly $20 billion in 2004. . .” (Whitaker, “Psychiatric Drugs”) 1
If psychiatric drugs are so effective at treating “mental illness”, and the use of psychiatric drugs is steadily increasing, then how can it be that rates of mental illness are also steadily increasing? Could it be that psychiatric drugs actually cause mental illness? If psychiatric drugs cause mental illness, then how could psychiatrists have not admitted this to the public by now? Is it possible that psychiatric drugs are deliberately being used to cause mental illness? Could the drugs which we are prescribed to make us get well actually be intended to make us get sick?
“Chlorpromazine has produced a decrease in brutality in mental hospitals which was not achievable by any system of supervision or control of personal,” declared Anthony Sainz of Marcy State Hospital in New York. “Many patients, for example, when they develop a central ganglionic or Parkinsonian syndrome become more ‘sick’ and thus arouse the sympathies of those taking care of them, instead of arousing their anger and hostility. The patients, in consequence, receive better care rather than worse.” (Febiger, Lea 86, quoted in Whitaker, “Mad” 146) 2
In the 1950s, when Chlorpromazine, the first in a class of brain damaging drugs that was later to be termed “Antipsychotics” was invented, doctors and scientists made no claims that these chemicals restored “mentally ill” subjects to normality, or even treated any psychiatric symptoms. The purpose of these drugs was simply to control psychiatric patients, to render them passive and dependant, less troublesome for their jailers. In their praise of these new chemical control mechanisms, psychiatrists of the time lauded the new drugs by comparing their effects to that of a straightjacket, a lobotomy, or the dementia resulting from an infectious disease called encephalitis lethargica. (Whitaker, “Mad” 146) 3
Some psychiatrists noticed that patients receiving the high doses of these drugs “most effective” at controlling them were not merely sedated, but rather they were exhibiting symptoms of Parkinson’s disease that made it impossible for them to control their facial muscles, talk, walk, or move normally. It was understood that in order to produce the desired sedating effect of the drug, it was also necessary to bring about a chemically induced Parkinsonianism. (Breggin, “Toxic” 72) 4 The psychiatrists thought that this was just peachy.
Over the next decade, as economic policy shifted from the Eugenics model of psychiatry which had insisted on keeping psychiatrically labeled people segregated from society in mental institutions, to a modern model that did not wish to continue this expensive and no longer politically correct practice, a great propaganda campaign was initiated. Supposedly, a successful treatment for severe mental illnesses such as Schizophrenia and Bipolar Disorder had been found, and now, thanks to the advances of modern science, the mentally ill could return to the community, liberated from their psychosis by these new miracle pills, they could once again become functioning members of society.
When the decision was made to promote these new psychiatric drugs as a “treatment” for mental illness that could restore troubled people to productive lives, rather than as a “chemical straightjacket” meant for subduing them, psychiatrists quickly dropped all talk of dementia and Parkinsonian syndromes. Supposedly these new drugs were nearly free of side effects, and, although the process was still unknown, they somehow restored balance to the clearly “unbalanced” brains of psychiatric patients. (Whitaker, “Mad” 147-159) 5
In 1963, it was discovered that these “antipsychotic” drugs inhibit the activity of a chemical messenger in the brain, dopamine, so psychiatrists promptly reported that they had discovered the “cause” of psychosis. They rationalized that if drugs which “effectively” treated psychosis did so by reducing dopamine activity, then psychosis must be caused by too much dopamine activity. (Whitaker, “Psychiatry”) 6
This unproven “chemical imbalance” theory is the origin of the convenient stance that “mental illness” is not a sociopolitical problem caused by widespread intolerance of variant beliefs and behavior, in addition to inadequate support for people dealing with issues such as poverty, discrimination, sexual assault, and family violence, but rather a “biological brain disorder”, caused by a “chemical imbalance” in the brain, which can be corrected by psychiatric drugs.
Psychiatrists continuously fail to mention the fact that they have never been able to demonstrate any noticeable abnormalities in the neurochemical systems of a “mentally ill” person prior to “drug treatment”, and that the neurological changes induced by their drugs are pathological. (Whitaker, “Psychiatry”) 7
A brain drugged with antipsychotics is robbed of the function of 60 to 90 percent of its dopamine receptors, and thus can no longer properly operate the three domaminergenic pathways necessary for normal neurological function; the nigrostriatal system which initiates and controls motor movements, the mesolimbic system which regulates emotion, and the mesocortical system which connects portions of the brain responsible for reasoning and higher brain function. Antipsychotics cause a pathological deficiency in dopamine transmission. (Farde “Positron”, and Reynolds “Antipsychotic”, qutoted in Whitaker, “Mad” 162-164) 8
Most of the symptoms we have come to associate with “the mentally ill”, the sleepiness, the apathy, the shuffling gait, the vacant facial expression, and the twitching, jerking movements, are actually symptoms created by the antipsychotic drugs themselves. (Whitaker, “Mad” 164) 9
Meanwhile, the psychiatrically assaulted brain, in a desperate and ineffectual attempt to restore dopamine function, attempts to compensate for the drug induced dopamine deficiency by sprouting a noticeable proliferation of new, abnormally concentrated dopamine receptors. In keeping with the dopamine theory, this should cause such an affected person to become much more vulnerable to psychosis then they ever would have been if left undrugged. (Whitaker, “Mad” 184) 10
This seemingly paradoxical effect is borne out by the fact that in studies of persons hospitalized for psychotic symptoms during the 60s and 70s, there is a much greater relapse rate for those “treated” with antipsychotics than for those who were left undrugged, even when the drugged patients faithfully took their “medication.” (Whitaker, “Mad” 181-186) 11 A 1978 state hospital trial conducted by Maurice Rappoport and his San Francisco colleagues showed a 27% relapse rate for young male schizophrenics treated without drugs over a three year period, and an alarming 62% percent relapse rate for the medicated group (quoted in Whitaker, “Mad” 183). 12 Apparently, the brain changes brought about by use of these antipsychotic drugs actually predispose a person to psychosis.
Today, with an estimated 92% of people having received a diagnosis of Schizophrenia being drugged (Lehman, quoted in Whitaker, “Mad” 232) 13, there are very few examples left of what the “natural course” of what was once called madness would even look like. Once a person has been psychiatrically labeled and addicted to psychiatric drugs, whether antipsychotics, antidepressants, mood stabilizers, stimulants, benzodiazepines, or others, it can be very difficult to get off of them, for social, as well as physical reasons.
Unlike other branches of medicine, the psychiatric system clearly performs a social control function. Not only do psychiatrists have the law on their side, which permits them to employ both intimidation and physical force to achieve “treatment compliance” from people with psychiatric labels, (which would otherwise be considered stalking, harassment, home invasion, assault, poisoning, kidnapping, etc.) the psychiatric system has also been placed in change of many social services programs, which leaves poor psychiatrically labeled people who wish to go off of drugs which they know are harming them, but can’t afford to lose basic services such as public housing, caught between a rock and a hard place. Perhaps worst of all, many friends and family members of psychiatrically labeled people buy into the circular logic presented to them by psychiatrists and the media, which claims that the normal drug withdrawal symptoms experienced by an addicted person who goes off of psychiatric drugs are actually “psychiatric symptoms” and prove that the addicted person really “needs” them. (Whitaker, “Psychiatry”) 14
Sadly, in the interest of maintaining profit, social control, and professional reputations, drug studies which demonstrated addiction, or the increased likelihood of psychosis created by these drugs, were largely suppressed from the public, as was a more than 50% incidence of Akathisia, a torturous feeling of inner restlessness, and the emergence of Tardive Dyskinesia/Tardive Dystonia, a humiliating, and often painful and disabling condition of muscular spasms and tics including involuntary tongue thrusting, eye rolling, grimacing, chewing motions, neck jerking, breathing problems, vocal tics, and muscle spasms in the arms, legs and torso which can cause rigidity, and/or flailing or snakelike movements, making walking, cooking, bathing, and other basic activities challenging and treacherous, even confining some victims to wheelchairs. The TD syndrome varies in severity, but it results from neurological damage. If the offending drugs are not withdrawn immediately when symptoms first begin, in most cases, it becomes largely permanent, even if the drugs are later withdrawn. (Breggin, “Toxic” 68-80, Also Whitaker, “Mad” 190-193) 15
It is estimated that every year someone is on an antipsychotic drug they have a 5 percent chance of developing Tardive Dyskinesia (According to The APA, also NIMH physician Crane, quoted by Whitaker, “Mad” 190-191.) 16, meaning that a person who is on these drugs for 5 years would have a one in four chance of developing the syndrome, and a person who is on these drugs for 20 years or more would almost certainly develop it. (Breggin, “Toxic” 74-76) 17 With antipsychotic drugs as their big medical breakthrough and major money maker, most psychiatrists were content to downplay Tardive Dyskinesia and other obviously harmful effects of the drugs, at least, of course, until the next big money medical breakthrough.
In the 80s, a new class of drug became the darling of the psychiatric industry, SSRI Antidepressants. The psychiatric industry had been attempting to market various other categories of chemicals, such as the MAOIs, as “antidepressants” for years, but had met with limited success. This is likely because users of these Monoamine Oxidase Inhibitors were required to abstain from a long list of foods, including chocolate and cheese, or risk sudden death, (Breggin, “Toxic” 160) 18 which is obviously a tough sell for the average American consumer.
The invention of Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors, claimed at first to be free from harmful side effects, followed by the biggest promotional propaganda campaign ever undertaken by the psychiatric industry, which claimed that SSRIs, such as Prozac, were not only safe and effective at “treating mental illness”, but also, as stated in Peter Kramer’s best-selling 1993 book “Listening to Prozac”, could also make a “normal” person “better than well”, and were thus desirable drugs for millions of Americans, who would have never previously been considered “mentally ill”, would soon, with the brain damaging, mental illness and suicide inducing effect of these “wonder drugs”, radically alter the landscape of America’s “mental health” even more profoundly than the antipsychotic drugs that came before them.
Millions of people who would have never dreamed of taking an antipsychotic, with such a clearly unfashionable side effect profile, were now eagerly gobbling antidepressants, and forcing them down their children’s throats. Meanwhile, studies were showing that Prozac produced nearly identical structural damage to the serotonin network of rats as those produced by high levels of the illicit drug Ecstasy. (Klam, Quoted by Breggin, “Anti-Depressant” 27) 19
By preventing the reuptake of serotonin, the brain is temporarily flooded with excess quantities of this “feel good” neurotransmitter, but soon, in an attempt to restore its innate balance, the brain reacts to this glut of unneeded serotonin first by shutting down serotonin production, and then, in desperation, a process known as down regulation begins, which ultimately kills off up to 60 percent of the serotonin receptors in the now drug damaged brain. (Wamsley et al., quoted by Breggin, “Anti-Depressant” 34-35) 20
Like antipsychotics, which cause a pathological change in the dopamine system, and thus, supposedly prove that dopamine imbalance is the cause of psychosis, the fact that antidepressants caused a pathological change in the serotonin system was held up like a glistening turd by proud psychiatrists as “proof” that Depression, once thought to be an emotional problem which could be worked through by the vast majority of individuals, was actually another biological disease caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain, and requiring a drug for treatment, just like Bipolar Disorder or Schizophrenia. (Whitaker, “Psychiatric Drugs”) 21
Because antidepressants rarely cause the type of physically disfiguring side effects that are nearly ubiquitous with antipsychotics, such as dramatic weight gain, hair loss, drooling, or bizarre facial twitching, it was easy for people to accept them as harmless, but their much touted effect on the serotonin system had a dark side that was rarely mentioned by the media as these drugs climbed in popularity.
Soon psychiatrists began to talk of a new phenomenon they nicknamed “kindling” that is, patients with an “underlying” but “asymptomatic” case of Bipolar Disorder or Schizophrenia which is suddenly “brought to the surface” by the use of an SSRI antidepressant. (Breggin, “Anti-Depressant” 47-52, 112-116) 22 In a controlled clinical trial of Prozac on children ages seven to seventeen in Texas, 6% with no history of mania had to drop out of the study before completion because they had become manic. (Emslie et al. Quoted by Breggin, “Anti-Depressant” 115) 23 When doctors from the University of Pittsburgh looked back at clinic charts from young people ages eight through nineteen who had taken Prozac, it was found that a full 23% of them had developed mania, or “manic like” symptoms. (Jain et al. Quoted by Breggin, “Anti-Depressant” 114-115) 24
In mainstream psychiatric literature intended for patients or for public consumption, it is never acknowledged that the brain disrupting effects of the SSRIs might be causing people with no “predisposition” to psychosis or mania to develop these symptoms as a drug reaction. Instead, of course, it is maintained that these persons must have been severely mentally ill all along, their true psychotic natures hidden underneath a mask of near normal depressive behavior. These people should be grateful to the SSRI that caused the true nature of their psychotic mania to emerge, because now they can get the treatment that they truly require. That’s right, we have come full circle, back to old reliable, the antipsychotic drugs.
According to an “educational” website for psychiatrists about “mental illness” by the makers of Zyprexa, who were recently revealed to have deliberately covered up the countless deaths and disabling complications caused by their popular second generation antipsychotic drug, a full 30% of people presenting with Depression actually have Bipolar Disorder. If you read between the lines, this means than nearly one out of every three people who seeks help for Depression, typically walking away with an antidepressant, will later return, manic or psychotic, and a perfect target for a disabling antipsychotic drug such as Zyprexa, which, along with the usual risk of Tardive Dyskinesia, also produces a Metabolic Syndrome typified by extreme weight gain, often resulting in Diabetes or Heart Disease. As of 2005, less than a decade since Zyprexa was first approved in 1996, Zyprexa had been prescribed to 20 million people in 84 countries. (See for yourself Initially hailed as “wonder drugs” which would make people “better than well”, over the last several years media reports of school shooters, child slaughtering mothers, and previously stable people who suddenly committed violent suicides began to add up. What did all the people in these geographically disparate locations have in common? Nearly all of them were all taking an SSRI antidepressant, or had recently stopped taking an SSRI antidepressant, and were thus experiencing the severe drug withdrawal syndromes that occur before the damaged serotonin system manages to rebuild itself. (Breggin, “Anti-Depressant” 85-92, 99-106, 116-119) 26
Grudgingly, the FDA admitted that in clinical studies submitted to win approval for these supposedly “lifesaving” drugs, the incidence of alarming side effects such as hallucinations, hostility, Akathisia, self injury, and violent or suicidal ideation had been systematically ignored. (Whitaker, “Psychiatric Drugs”) 27 It was uncovered that in the clinical study which won FDA approval for antidepressant Serozone, the suicide rate in the group “treated” with Serozone was more than 5 times greater than that of those who received a placebo. (Moore, Quoted in Breggin, “Anti-Depressant” 85) 28 Other studies revealed that Prozac caused Akathisia, a tortuous inner restlessness which was formerly thought to be a unique feature of the antipsychotic drugs, and which is known to often precipitate violence, suicide, or self harming behaviors, such as cutting and burning the arms, in 10 to 25% of people taking it. (Lipinski et al. also Rothschild and Locke. Quoted in Breggin “Anti-Depressant” 58) 29
A study showed that children on SSRIs were twice as likely to experience suicidal ideation as others. Then testimonies from parents whose children had suddenly killed themselves after starting an antidepressant drove the point home, and in 2004 the FDA put a blackbox warning on antidepressants, saying that they have been shown to increase suicidal thinking and behavior in adolescents and children. (Downs, “Depression”, also see for yourself on the official FDA webpage According to mainstream pro-psychiatry resources such as WebMD, by the end of 2005 there had been a 20% drop in prescriptions of antidepressants to children, but never fear, childhood prescriptions for antipsychotics are picking up the slack. As suicide fears cause prescriptions for antidepressants to go down, prescriptions for antipsychotics are skyrocketing. (Hitia, “Kids”) 31
The reliable pattern of escalating diagnosis, which brings so many adults and children from a relatively minor diagnosis such as ADHD or Depression, to a more severe diagnosis such as Bipolar Disorder or Schizophrenia, is accomplished with help from SSRI antidepressants, and stimulants such as Ritalin and Dexedrine. Ritalin (methylphenidate) is chemically similar to, and has been shown to affect the Serotonin, Norepinephrine, and Dopamine systems of the brain in much the same manner as the illegal drug crystal meth, which psychiatrists consider capable of inducing a “chronic Schizophrenia.” In clinical practice, stimulants such as Ritalin (whose side effects range from skin rashes to life threatening cardiac problems) have also been shown to cause potentially serious psychological problems such as depression, anxiety, insomnia, obsessions and compulsions, mood swings, mania, hallucinations, and other psychotic symptoms. Unfortunately, according to Marshall (2000) who surveyed two Virginia school districts, 20% of fifth grade boys were being administered stimulants during school. (Breggin, “Anti-Depressant” 112-116), see also (Breggin, “Talking” 3 quoteing Marshall, also 7-8, 44-47, 63), and (Whitaker, “Psychiatric Drugs”) 32.
In my experience, and the experience of many of my peers, other young psychiatricly labeled people who I have informally interviewed on the subject, the disabling progression from a drug like Ritalin, to a drug like Prozac, to a drug like Zyprexa has played out like clockwork. Labeled as ADHD in elementary school when the drugging commenced, by the time we reached highschool, many of us had already been re-christened as Bipolar or Schizophrenic. The disabling effect of the drugs on our minds caused many of us to drop out of school. I myself have been fortunate enough to get off of these drugs entirely over five years ago, thus facilitating my recovery from a path of drug induced mental illness, but few that I know have had the support necessary to make this break. Although I surely suffered some brain damage while on these drugs, as evidenced by a drop in IQ, I managed to get off of them before I developed a serious syndrome of neurological damage such as Tardive Dyskinesia. Many will not be this lucky. Watching how this pattern of escalating diagnosis, escalating drug induced illness, and disability has played out in my generation, I am especially horrified by what is happening to the children of today.
Increasingly child psychiatrists are cutting to the chase and immediately labeling children, even preverbal infants, with psychiatric disorders once reserved for adults, such as Bipolar and Schizophrenia, so as to legitimize prescribing them the disabling antipsychotics that are now coming back into vogue. Other child psychiatrists don’t even feel the need to diagnose a psychotic disorder to prescribe an antipsychotic drug, any diagnosis will do. A full 38% of prescriptions for antipsychotics to people under 20 are for “disruptive behavior disorders” such as ADHD. (Hitia, “Kids”) 33
Since the invention of a marketable product, psychiatric drugs, the percentage of the population labeled as “mentally ill” by the psychiatric system, and thus supposedly in need of these drugs, has been steadily climbing, and children make the ideal target. (Whitaker, “Psychiatric Drugs”) 34 In 1999, in response to the school shootings in Colorado and Georgia, the Clintons and the Gores hosted the first ever White House Conference on Mental Health, but they did not mention the fact that most of the shooters had been taking psychiatric drugs, instead Hilary Clinton introduced New York University psychiatrist Harold Koplewicz, who stated that “absent fathers, working mothers, over permissive parents” can not cause emotional disturbances in children. According to Koplewicz, even “bad childhood traumas” such as “sexual abuse”, and “traumatic experiances-abuse, divorce, the death of a loved one”, or being “abandoned or beaten” can not and will not cause emotional disturbances in children, unless of course, they already suffer from pre-existing genetic biological defects in the brain. Koplewicz stated that in his opinion “12% of the population under age 18.” had these defects of the brain which made them mentally ill. Hilary Clinton replied to Koplewicz’s speech by announcing that these youth must receive psychiatric treatment “whether or not they want it or are willing to accept it.” (Breggin, “Talking” 18-19) 35
These days, the government has partnered with the psychiatric industry to promote psychiatric drugging in a number of ways. They have developed some “sophisticated” mental health screening surveys for schools, such as Teen Screen, based on TMAP, the pharmaceutically funded Texas Medication Algorithm Project, which tends to discover that nearly one out of four high school students are potentially suicidal, and with that in mind, they will be referred to a psychiatrist, where at least 60% of them will receive a prescription for a hazardous, addictive, and potentially mental illness or suicide inducing psychiatric drug. (Watson, “Letter”) 36 Perhaps even more troublingly, the government has recently put an organization called “Zero to Three” in charge of promoting the emerging concept of “infant mental health” through established programs such as Headstart, which targets children from low-income families. (See for yourself Supposedly due to an inherited, biological, “pre-disposition”, children and youth who have experienced abuse, neglect, homelessness, or other personal crisis are most frequently targeted for psychiatric labeling and drugging. A Boston Globe story from 2004 cites a 2/3rds figure for Massachusetts foster children receiving psychiatric services. (Vascellaro, “Prevalence”) 38
A new report from the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University shows that prescription drug abuse among teens tripled from 1992 to 2003. The survey indicated that one in 10 teenagers tried stimulants Ritalin or Adderall without a prescription. Over a third of the youths prescribed these drugs admitted to “misusing” them, crushing and snorting the pills, or selling and giving away the drugs to peers. This behavior likely extends to other highly addictive psychiatric drugs, such as the benzodiazepines, known to be diverted by adult prescription holders onto the illicit market, where they can be found for sale alongside crack and heroin.
Although thus far epidemiologically unacknowledged, for many young people, the drug induced highs and lows of addictive psychiatric “medications” may act as a “gateway drug” setting the stage for a future of illegal drug use, addiction, criminalization, unemployment, homelessness, incarceration, illness, and early death. Ironically, in the end, those sticking with their prescribed psychiatric “medications” wont fare any better. Recently, psychiatric drugs were officially implicated in reducing the average life-spans of Americans labeled with mental illness to less than 2/3rds that of their peers. This alarming gap in life expectancy has widened rapidly, from a mere 10 years in the 1990s, to a massive 25 year discrepancy today, according to an extensive 2006 report authored by Joseph Parks, director of psychiatric services for the Missouri Department of Mental Health. Even taking into account important factors such as lifestyle, researchers still found this loss to be primarily attributable to the exponential increase in the use of psychiatric drugs. Not only are more Americans on psychiatric drugs, they are also much more likely to be on multiple drugs, and to be starting on these drugs at dramatically younger ages.
As this generation grows up in a haze of chemically induced mental illness, sustaining brain damage, and going on to develop iatrogenic diseases such as Tardive Dyskinesia, Heart Disease, Kidney Failure, Thyroid Disease, and Diabetes in epidemic numbers, often becoming disabled for life, and dying young, a controversy will likely emerge, but rest assured, by then the psychiatric system will have come up with yet another class of wonder drugs to fix our brains by damaging them, silencing our protests, and making us sick in novel ways that will hopefully arouse some sympathy, increasing the quality of our care. Clearly, psychiatrists have our best interest in mind, working hard to make us “become more sick”, so that we can be “better than well.”
Notes;
1 Whitaker, Robert. “Psychiatric Drugs: An Assault on the Human Condition.” Street Spirit. August 2005. http://thestreetspirit.org/August2005/interview.htm.
2 Febiger, Lee. “Chlorpromazine and Mental Heath,” Proceedings of the Symposium Held Under the Auspices of Smith, Kline & French Laboratories. 6 June 1955: 86. Quoted in Whitaker, Robert. Mad In America: Bad Science, Bad Medicine, and the Enduring Mistreatment of the Mentally Ill. Cambridge, MA: Perseus, 2002. 146.
3 Whitaker, Robert. Mad In America: Bad Science, Bad Medicine, and the Enduring Mistreatment of the Mentally Ill. Cambridge, MA: Perseus, 2002. 146.
4 Breggin, Peter R. Toxic Psychiatry: Why Therapy, Empathy, and Love Must Replace the Drugs, Electroshock, and Biochemical Theories of the “New Psychiatry. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press, 1991. 72.
5 Whitaker, “Mad.” Op.Cit. 147-159.
6 Whitaker, Robert. “Psychiatry’s Untold History of Cruelty, Torture, Eugenics, and Brain Damage.” Street Spirit. August 2005. http://thestreetspirit.org/August2005/madinterview.htm.
7 Ibid.
8 Farde, L. “Positron Emission Tomography Analysis of Central D1 and D2 Dopamine Receptor Occupancy in Patients Treated With Classical Neuroleptics and Clozapine.” Archives of General Psychiatry. 49 (1992): 538-544. Also, Reynolds, G.P. “Antipsychotic Drug Mechanisms and Neurotransmitter Systems in Schizophrenia.” Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica. 89 supplement 380 (1994): 36-40. Quoted in Whitaker, “Mad.” Op.Cit. 162-164.
9 Whitaker, “Mad.” Op.Cit. 164.
10 Ibid, 184.
11 Ibid, 181-186, see table 7.1.
12 Rappaport, Maurice. “Are There Schizophrenics for Whom Drugs May Be Unnecessary or Contraindicated?” International Pharmacopsychiatry. 13 (1978): 100-111. Quoted in Whitaker, “Mad.” Op.Cit. 183.
13 Lehman, Anthony. “Patterns of Usual Care for Schizophrenia. Initial Results from the Schizophrenia Patient Outcomes Research Team Client Survey." Schizophrenia Bulletin. 24 (1998): 11-20. Quoted in Whitaker, “Mad.” Op.Cit. 232.
14 Whitaker, “Psychiatry.” Op.Cit.
15 Breggin, “Toxic.” Op.Cit. 68-80. Also, Whitaker, “Mad.” Op.Cit. 190-192.
16 Crane, George. “Clinical Psychopharmacology in It’s 20th Year.” Science 181 (1973): 124-128. Also American Psychiatric Association. Tardive Dyskinesia: A Task Force Report. (1992). Quoted in Whitaker, “Mad.” Op.Cit. 190-191.
17 Breggin, “Toxic.” Op.Cit. 74-76.
18 Ibid, 160.
19 Klam, New York Times Magazine. 21 January 2001. Quoted in Breggin, Peter R. The Anti-Depressant Fact Book: What Your Doctor Wont Tell You About Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, Celexa, and Luvox. Cambridge, MA: Da Capo, 2001. 27.
20 Wamsley et al. (1987). Quoted in Breggin, Peter R. The Anti-Depressant Fact Book: What Your Doctor Wont Tell You About Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, Celexa, and Luvox. Cambridge, MA: Da Capo, 2001. 34-35.
21 Whitaker, “Psychiatric Drugs.” Op.Cit.
22 Breggin, Peter R. The Anti-Depressant Fact Book: What Your Doctor Wont Tell You About Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, Celexa, and Luvox. Cambridge, MA: Da Capo, 2001. 47-52, 112-116.
23 Emslie et al. (1997). Quoted in Breggin, “Anti-Depressant” Op.Cit. 114-115.
24 Jain et al. (1992). Ibid, 115.
25 Eli Lilly and Company. The Official ZYPREXA Olanzapine Site. 2007.
26 Breggin, “Anti-Depressant.” Op.Cit. 85-92, 99-106, 116-119.
27 Whitaker, “Psychiatric Drugs.” Op.Cit.
28 Moore, T. “Hard to Swallow” The Washington Post. December 1997. 69ff. Quoted in Breggin, “Anti-Depressant.” Op.Cit. 27.
29 Lipinski et al. (1989), also Rothschild and Locke (1991). Quoted in Breggin “Anti-Depressant.” Op.Cit. 58.
30 Downs, Martin F. “Depression: Is your Child Depressed?” WebMD. 14 August 2006.
31 Hitia, Miranda. “Kids Use of Antipsychotic Drugs Rises.” WebMD. 6 June 2006.
32 Breggin, “Anti-Depressant.” Op.Cit. 112-116, see also Breggin, Peter R. Talking Back to Ritalin: What Doctors Aren’t Telling You About Stimulants and ADHD. Cambridge, MA: DaCapo, 2001. Quoteing researcher Marshall (2000) 3, also 7-8, 44-47, 63. and Whitaker, “Psychiatric Drugs.” Op.Cit.
33 Hitia, “Kids.” Op.Cit.
34 Whitaker, “Psychiatric Drugs.” Op.Cit.
35 Breggin, Peter R. Talking Back to Ritalin: What Doctors Aren’t Telling You About Stimulants and ADHD. Cambridge, MA: DaCapo, 2001. 18-19.
36 Watson, Toby. “Letter to Sheboygan Psychologist re TeenScreen.” Kenosha Parents Union. 15 Jan. 2007.
37 National Center for Infants, Toddlers and Families. ZERO TO THREE. 2007.
38 Vascellaro, Jessica. “Prevalence of Drugs for DSS Wards Questioned.” Boston Globe. 9 August 2004.
Bibliography;
Breggin, Peter R. The Anti-Depressant Fact Book: What Your Doctor Wont Tell You About Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, Celexa, and Luvox. Cambridge, MA: Da Capo, 2001.
Breggin, Peter R. Talking Back to Ritalin: What Doctors Aren’t Telling You About Stimulants and ADHD. Cambridge, MA: DaCapo, 2001.
Breggin, Peter R. Toxic Psychiatry: Why Therapy, Empathy, and Love Must Replace the Drugs, Electroshock, and Biochemical Theories of the “New Psychiatry.” New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press, 1991.
Downs, Martin F. “Depression: Is your Child Depressed?” WebMD. 14 August 2006.
Eberstadt, Mary. Home Alone America: The Hidden Toll of Daycare, Behavioral Drugs, and Other Parent Substitutes. New York: Sentinel, 2004.
FDA. “FDA Launches a Multi-Pronged Strategy to Strengthen Safeguards for Children Treated With Antidepressant Medications.” US Food and Drug Administration. 15 October 2004.
Hitia, Miranda. “Kids Use of Antipsychotic Drugs Rises.” WebMD. 6 June 2006.
National Center for Infants, Toddlers and Families. ZERO TO THREE. 2007.
Vascellaro, Jessica. “Prevalence of Drugs for DSS Wards Questioned.” Boston Globe. 9 August 2004.
Watson, Toby. “Letter to Sheboygan Psychologist re TeenScreen.” Kenosha Parents Union. 15 Jan. 2007. 19 April 2007.
Whitaker, Robert. Mad In America: Bad Science, Bad Medicine, and the Enduring Mistreatment of the Mentally Ill. Cambridge, MA: Perseus, 2002.
Whitaker, Robert. “Psychiatric Drugs: An Assault on the Human Condition.” Street Spirit. August 2005.
Whitaker, Robert. “Psychiatry’s Untold History of Cruelty, Torture, Eugenics, and Brain Damage.” Street Spirit. August 2005.
Contact the author at fritzflohr@againstpsychiatry.com
For more great anti-psychiatry perspectives, from this author and others, check out our evolving resource; http://www.againstpsychiatry.com